↓ Skip to main content

Maximizing antimalarial efficacy and the importance of dosing strategies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Maximizing antimalarial efficacy and the importance of dosing strategies
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0349-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

James G Beeson, Philippe Boeuf, Freya JI Fowkes

Abstract

Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are the cornerstone for the treatment of malaria. However, confirmed resistance to artemisinins in South-East Asia, and reports of reduced efficacy of ACTs raise major concerns for malaria treatment and control. Without new drugs to replace artemisinins, it is essential to define dosing strategies that maximize therapeutic efficacy, limit the spread of resistance, and preserve the clinical value of ACTs. It is important to determine the extent to which reduced efficacy of ACTs reflects true resistance versus sub-optimal dosing, and quantify other factors that determine treatment failure. Pooled analyses of individual patient data from multiple clinical trials, by investigators in the Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network, have shown high overall efficacy for three widely used ACTs, artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-amodiaquine, and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. Analyses also highlight that suboptimal dosing leads to increased risk of treatment failure, especially among children. In the most recent study, an analysis of clinical trials of artesunate-amodiaquine, widely used among children in Africa, revealed a superior efficacy for fixed-dose combination tablets compared to loose non-fixed dose combinations. This highlights the benefits of fixed-dose combinations as a practical strategy for ensuring optimal antimalarial dosing and maximizing efficacy.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/66.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Vietnam 1 3%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Chemistry 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 6 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,470,158
of 12,143,967 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,475
of 1,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,216
of 223,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#70
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,143,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 223,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.